Bob Kravitz: Why can't the Pacers win in Atlanta?

Pacers have lost 12 consecutive games to the Hawks in Atlanta

Apr. 28, 2013

Loading Photo Galleries ...

Written by

:

David West #21 of the Indiana Pacers reacts after a call against the Atlanta Hawks during Game Three of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals of the 2013 NBA Playoffs at Philips Arena on April 27, 2013 in Atlanta, Georgia. / (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Atlanta Hawks power forward Ivan Johnson (44) looks for a loose ball with Indiana Pacers power forward Tyler Hansbrough (50) during the second half in Game 3 of their first-round NBA basketball playoff series, Saturday, April 27, 2013 in Atlanta. / (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

Related Links

ATLANTA — I’d like to blame it all on Cheetah’s. Or the Pink Pony. Or Magic City, or any one of those other places in Buckhead or around the ATL where young men with money and free time are likely to hang out until the wee hours of the night.

Except I can’t.

The Pacers, these Pacers, are not the stay-out-all-night, party-hearty, go-hard-or-go-home types.

So why can’t the Indiana Pacers, losers of 12 straight games in Atlanta, beat this ordinary Hawks team on the road? Why can’t they come into Philips Arena, which is usually three-quarters filled with fans who’d rather be watching football, and take down a team that will be dismantled at season’s end?

It’s understandable to lose 11 straight in San Antonio, as the Pacers have. It’s not understandable to lose 12 consecutive times in Atlanta, where the Hawks have been beacons of mediocrity over the years.

“I have no theory why,” Paul George said after the Pacers practiced in advance of Monday night’s Game 4. “Sometimes we’ve played well down here and lost. Sometimes, like (Saturday night), we’ve played poorly and lost. I couldn’t give you a reason.”

If the Pacers accomplished anything during their gruesome film session Sunday — Roy Hibbert called it “an airing of grievances” — it was reaching the conclusion that most of their problems were self-inflicted. While the Hawks were playing with abject desperation, the Pacers were just showing up.

Asked his biggest disappointment after watching the game and then watching the tape, coach Frank Vogel didn’t hesitate.

“Our offensive disposition,” he said. “We played with a low motor. I thought we were passive and succumbed to their pressure.”

Before the series, Vogel minimized the streak — it’s not The Streak until it hits 15 — by noting that most of the current Pacers were only on hand for about four or five of those losses.

That’s true, to an extent.

It’s also true, to an even greater extent, that the Pacers have played some of their worst basketball in this locale — the worst coming Saturday night when they got pasted 90-69 in an embarrassing Game 3 loss.

(Page 2 of 2)

Hibbert, who is always reflective, talked openly about the mental block he has to overcome whenever he plays in Atlanta, but this seems to be a universal deal. The Pacers couldn’t have played worse Saturday night, shooting poorly, turning the ball over 22 times and just generally looking like a team that can’t handle success.

It’s not like there’s any one or two clear match-ups that clearly disfavor the Pacers when they face the Hawks. In the past, Hibbert has had problems with Al Horford’s pick-and-pop game, but beyond that, the Pacers would seem to have an advantage at virtually every position.

The key now, and for the rest of the series, will be the George-Josh Smith match-up. George is not used to guarding physical power forwards who live in the post. But the Pacers will be disinclined to double-down on Smith, knowing he leads the league in assists by a power forward and is surrounded by the third-best three-point shooting team in the league.

George has grown up so much this season; now he needs to grow more.

There was some disagreement among the Pacers whether the Hawks’ move to a big lineup — a move that came one game too late for Atlanta — made a difference. Hibbert said yes. David West said no. Vogel didn’t think it made a huge difference.

Pardon some disagreement with West and Vogel, but it looked to me like it changed the dynamics of the game. Again, it allows Smith to cover George and forces George to cover Smith. And don’t over-look the significant minutes and productive play from Ivan Johnson, a chippy, annoying player who was banned from the South Korean professional league for flipping the bird at an official.

The big lineup gives the Hawks a chance.

A small one.

Which brings us to the elemental question that will be asked and answered in Game 4 Monday night:

Has this team grown up?

Have they grown up the way the Knicks have grown up as they’ve taken clear control of their series with the Boston Celtics?

A mature, focused team wins Game 4 and closes it out Wednesday back in Indianapolis. That’s the call here, anyway.

A fragile, shaky team loses tonight and lets the Hawks right back into this series.

They should come out desperate and angry Monday night. They should. If they don’t, sound the alarm bells and raise the red flags.

“I’m encouraged; we’re the better team,’’ Vogel The Optimist said Sunday. “When we play the way we’re supposed to play, we’ll win.’’

They were a chastened, focused group Sunday. And nobody was planning a road trip to watch the ballet over at Cheetah’s or the Pink Pony. A different team, the same team that dominated the Hawks in Games 1 and 2, will show up Monday night.